Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

!st off Trump really doesn't need national coverage, he was there specifically so the local media would air him.

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

!st off Trump really doesn't need national coverage, he was there specifically so the local media would air him.

I don't think that is the specific reason Trump jumped ship. It may be A reason, but he wanted to get a national audience that was bigger than what he got. He's an attention whore.

You guys are so paranoid about Trump that every little things gets you all ovely excited.

Chill out a little...

An average of 12.5 million viewers tuned in to Fox News to watch the debate from 9 to 11 p.m., according to Nielsen figures.

That's the second-smallest audience of the seven GOP debates. It's also half the viewership Fox News drew for the first GOP debate in August " the most-watched cable news event in history.

By comparison, the two networks that covered Trump's rival fundraiser Thursday night " CNN and MSNBC " drew about 2.7 million viewers between 9:15 and 10:15 p.m.C-SPAN, a station with a significantly smaller audience, also carried the event, and it was streamed a few places online " though numbers from those broadcasts are unavailable.

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

The whole point wasn't to beat the debate's ratings; that was never Trumps goal. His only goal was to take ratings away from FOX, which he did, and everyone is in agreement on that.

But, trump very much wanted people to watch the debate, and, in particular, watch Ted Cruz get destroyed, which he did, by both the moderators and his fellow contenders. More importantly, Trump wanted people to watch the debate, while knowing that he was off raising millions of dollars for veterans.

Tangentially, FOX's moderators were disastrously bad, as they consistently are, and nothing there should have surprised anyone... the only difference is that Trump didn't take the hit that he knew was coming.

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

The whole point wasn't to beat the debate's ratings; that was never Trumps goal. His only goal was to take ratings away from FOX, which he did, and everyone is in agreement on that.

I think whatever dip in the ratings that was attributable to Trump was too minuscule to be meaningful...like, at all.

The outcome is that Trump won the battle, by not fighting.

Agree to disagree.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

At 1/31/2016 12:26:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:The point of this as a miscalculation for Trump would assume that 12 million people saw strong performances from GOP candidates.

They weren't strong performances; but Rubio's ascendency is good for Trump because Rubio is now taking votes from both Jeb and Cruz.

Cruz "lost" the debate, but the actual standout was Bush.

If by "standout" you mean, "bush didn't embarrass himself egregiously" then sure.

Without Trump he was the so far the best on stage. Trump has killed him every time they are shown on the same stage.

Trump's absence did make Jeb look like less of a b!tch, but Jeb is still very much a bitch.

Its not going to matter for Bush, but that was his debate hands-down.

If Trump had never entered the race, it would be Bush fighting back the anti-establishment rather than trying to squeeze Rubio into that spot.

I don't agree. If Trump had never entered the race, it would still be Cruz and Rubio in the lead. Rubio is a better politician than Bush, after all, and Bush would have never taken the lead in any way. The only difference would have been that everyone would slide up a rank.

This is not surprising. The feud acted as massive advertising for the debate, but the fact that Trump's rally got millions of watchers is impressive...these numbers also don't include those who watched on CSPAN (like me) or online which is probably AT LEAST another 500,000.

Harder put it best...it would've been a horrible move for Trump if the other candidates came out of the debate looking good. But they didn't. Trump caught wind of the questions and he knew exactly how the debate was going to go....he WANTED people to watch the debate and see Cruz and Rubio, his two main rivals, tear each other to pieces. While the politicians looked vain and petty, Trump raised $6,000,000 for the vets and stood on stage with the last two Iowa caucuses winners.

This was Donald J. Trump's greatest troll yet.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

The whole point wasn't to beat the debate's ratings; that was never Trumps goal. His only goal was to take ratings away from FOX, which he did, and everyone is in agreement on that.

But, trump very much wanted people to watch the debate, and, in particular, watch Ted Cruz get destroyed, which he did, by both the moderators and his fellow contenders. More importantly, Trump wanted people to watch the debate, while knowing that he was off raising millions of dollars for veterans.

This, exactly this.

The debate stunt was one of the greatest trolls I have ever seen in any context

Tangentially, FOX's moderators were disastrously bad, as they consistently are, and nothing there should have surprised anyone... the only difference is that Trump didn't take the hit that he knew was coming.

The outcome is that Trump won the battle, by not fighting.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 1/31/2016 12:26:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:The point of this as a miscalculation for Trump would assume that 12 million people saw strong performances from GOP candidates.

They weren't strong performances; but Rubio's ascendency is good for Trump because Rubio is now taking votes from both Jeb and Cruz.

Right, and Rubio is a much easier opponent to beat on super Tuesday/the SEC primary than Cruz is. Cruz would have a solid chance at taking some of the south, especially Texas. Rubio has virtually no chance in any of the super Tuesday states except maybe Minnesota.

If Trump goes 4-0 in the early states and then wins all but one or two of the states on super Tuesday...it no longer matters what the roadmap would've looked like for his opponent later on. The race would be done at that point.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

The whole point wasn't to beat the debate's ratings; that was never Trumps goal. His only goal was to take ratings away from FOX, which he did, and everyone is in agreement on that.

I think whatever dip in the ratings that was attributable to Trump was too minuscule to be meaningful...like, at all.

Why would you think that? At least 3 million people all told watched Trumps event and most of them would've watched the debate if Trump was there.

Not to mention that these stats say it had 12.7 million viewers at any time during the debate...Trumps event ended before the debate did, and many of those people likely tuned in towards the end. That's when I watched it.

The outcome is that Trump won the battle, by not fighting.

Agree to disagree.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 1/31/2016 12:26:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:The point of this as a miscalculation for Trump would assume that 12 million people saw strong performances from GOP candidates.

They weren't strong performances; but Rubio's ascendency is good for Trump because Rubio is now taking votes from both Jeb and Cruz.

Right, and Rubio is a much easier opponent to beat on super Tuesday/the SEC primary than Cruz is. Cruz would have a solid chance at taking some of the south, especially Texas. Rubio has virtually no chance in any of the super Tuesday states except maybe Minnesota.

If Trump goes 4-0 in the early states and then wins all but one or two of the states on super Tuesday...it no longer matters what the roadmap would've looked like for his opponent later on. The race would be done at that point.

At 1/31/2016 2:22:11 AM, thett3 wrote:This is not surprising. The feud acted as massive advertising for the debate, but the fact that Trump's rally got millions of watchers is impressive...these numbers also don't include those who watched on CSPAN (like me) or online which is probably AT LEAST another 500,000.

Harder put it best...it would've been a horrible move for Trump if the other candidates came out of the debate looking good. But they didn't. Trump caught wind of the questions and he knew exactly how the debate was going to go....he WANTED people to watch the debate and see Cruz and Rubio, his two main rivals, tear each other to pieces. While the politicians looked vain and petty, Trump raised $6,000,000 for the vets and stood on stage with the last two Iowa caucuses winners.

This was Donald J. Trump's greatest troll yet.

Really, it's more than just an act of trolling. It's redefining the rules to work in your favor; he has changed the game, perhaps forever.

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

The whole point wasn't to beat the debate's ratings; that was never Trumps goal. His only goal was to take ratings away from FOX, which he did, and everyone is in agreement on that.

I think whatever dip in the ratings that was attributable to Trump was too minuscule to be meaningful...like, at all.

Why would you think that? At least 3 million people all told watched Trumps event and most of them would've watched the debate if Trump was there.

I don't really think that is the case. I definitely think that a lot of those viewers watched BOTH events (my dad went back and forth between the two, for instance). Moreover, I would factor in the viewers that might usually watch those channels and who might not have been interested in the GOP debate. My best friend only ever watches the democratic debates, because, as she puts it: "I am a registered democrat, why the hell do GOP primary debates matter to me?" So, I think the effect Trump had was--at most--1.5 million, which, compared to 13, is pittance, and so small as to be virtually meaningless, IMHO.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

At 1/30/2016 10:51:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:Read the excerpt, and comment/react:

Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available. Practically speaking, there is no way Trump's event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox's audience. [http://money.cnn.com...]

The whole point wasn't to beat the debate's ratings; that was never Trumps goal. His only goal was to take ratings away from FOX, which he did, and everyone is in agreement on that.

I think whatever dip in the ratings that was attributable to Trump was too minuscule to be meaningful...like, at all.

Why would you think that? At least 3 million people all told watched Trumps event and most of them would've watched the debate if Trump was there.

I don't really think that is the case. I definitely think that a lot of those viewers watched BOTH events (my dad went back and forth between the two, for instance). Moreover, I would factor in the viewers that might usually watch those channels and who might not have been interested in the GOP debate. My best friend only ever watches the democratic debates, because, as she puts it: "I am a registered democrat, why the hell do GOP primary debates matter to me?" So, I think the effect Trump had was--at most--1.5 million, which, compared to 13, is pittance, and so small as to be virtually meaningless, IMHO.

Even switching back and forth means you weren't watching the entire thing, but whatever.

Even going by your numbers, 1.5/13 is 12% which absolutely is NOT meaningless but it doesn't even matter. The entire thing was an elaborate troll and Trump actually benefited from people watching the debate, while also poaching enough of Fox's viewers that they know not to mess with him in the future.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle